Hi all. Looking for advice on how to handle this situation or details of your current on call help desk situation for this one.

I am the help desk supervisor with 2 direct reports supporting just over 1000 employees. Typical M-F job and not a lot of employees work on the weekends so there truly aren't a lot of calls. However, my boss told me today that he would like to see an on call schedule set up for employees requiring assistance after hours or on weekends. I am completely accepting that at this point it may be necessary to implement this and I am all for it as long as we are compensated a flat rate for being on call and readily available to address an issue in a timely manner in addition to the time it takes to resolve the issue.

This is currently not what is being offered and my boss has his feet dug in deep. He does not understand that every 3 weeks each of us will now have to put restrictions on our personal lives and family plans and activities. Some of us have children, second jobs, or own our own business. I feel that this is unfair especially when we have other services offered to our customers at this company which generously compensate the on call employees after hours and weekends.

I have spoken with a few fellow colleagues not in my department that understand my frustration. However, I am reaching out to see if there are any fellow IT SpiceHeads that have been put in similar positions or have any thoughts or examples. Anything is helpful at this point. I am currently salary so I may be out of luck, yet I would like to support my direct reports in this situation as well.

To be exempt you need to meet certain requirements, I think supervisory capacity is one. Otherwise employers would call everyone exempt and not pay any OT.

Actually, exempt vs non-exempt has everything to do with the job description. Most higher-level IT jobs are exempt by definition. Consult your state's guidelines if you're feeling particularly masochistic.

For the FLSA section 13(a)(1) exemptions to apply, an employee generally must be paid on a salary basis of no less than $455 per week and perform certain types of work that:

is directly related to the management of his or her employer's business, or
is directly related to the general business operations of his or her employer or the employer's clients, or
requires specialized academic training for entry into a professional field, or
is in the computer field, or
is making sales away from his or her employer's place of business, or
is in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.

FLSA Section 13(a)(17) exempts hourly paid employees who perform certain types of work in the computer field if they are paid at a rate of not less than $27.63 per hour.

I went through a similar situation at a previous employer - all I.T. staff were salaried - they balked at changing the policy when they realized that it was either compensation, increase in pay, change in job descriptions - they would not even offer comp time.

My current employer implemented a better solution...

Management, pay attention to what this is telling you.

If you implement a new on-call policy and the people who are supposed to provide support feel shafted, they will leave.

142 Replies

I was that sole employee put into an on call rotation that increased my “available hours” by 67%. I told my boss flat out “not without additional compensation and a defined SLA I’m not.” Frankly, he should have fired me but didn’t.

To your situation... you and your boss need to define very clearly what the expectations are for being on call - not only how fast a response needs to be and what kind of services qualify, but the legal aspects as well. If an employee if “engaged to wait” they must be paid for ALL time they’re engaged.

Until you have those parts ironed out, the rest doesn’t matter.

And for gods sake don’t give out the direct number for the poor bastards doing on call.

We have it setup like this:- on call: 20% of hour rate for the day (sundays and holidays are more)- once you pick up the phone, your clock starts for overtime at hourly rate

Just now we will have to define few things, as we still did not:- is oncall expected to drive to the company if something needs fixing? Then do we get payed for travel expenses end other expenses? If yes, then that means I can go and do whatever, even drive to seaside, and they have to reimburst my expenses to get back: if not, then I' expected to stay at home and that means I'm reserved for them and they need to pay full overtime- sla .. We still did not cleadly define response time -- again, if it's expected for me to ansver phone emidiatelly, then it should be overtime; if I have reasonable time to call back, then this is doable as on-call, but reasonable for me means 1h or more...

My "on call" arrangements are very casual - it started out after a 3rd party was called in whilst I was on holiday, they caused more issue than it was worth and since then, they've text or called (depending on the urgency) and I'll do "best effort" to get the issue resolved or circumvented from where ever I am. I don't get overtime payment or oncall payment - but I do get flexibility to have time off as/when I need it.

It's much easier these days - remote access means I can resolve most issues remotely, only sometimes having to call and get someone to be my hands on the ground...

We don't have an on call policy for desktop support at my current job, but at previous ones, we got a stipend just for being part of the rota, and if we were actually called out, we charged for the whole hour that the call came in on (so from 8am if the phone rang at 8:55) until the end of the hour it was finished, at double pay.

At my last job, the callout rota only last for 3 months because despite everyone saying they needed support at the weekend, the phone only rang twice. Once was a password change at 6am, and they got a proper shouting at for that from their manager because it wasn't in the defined list of "emergencies", and the other was a building management computer rebuild that took me 13 hours of work to get completed. I got 26 hours pay, my mileage at 45p per mile, and lunch and dinner on the company as a thank you.

This is indeed a tricky one, your boss is effectively suggesting a change to your conditions/contract of employment. If he was to force this and someone took exception and was fired for non-compliance, in the UK that would be unfair dismissal, probably different in the US though.

Having said that, if a decent compromise was found, it could be financially beneficial to employees.

I used to be in an on-call rota and it often left me on-call at Christmas or New Year which I felt was unfair. Someone would leave and the rota re-jigged which dragged me back into these periods unfairly (I lived 40 miles from work). We were not paid to be on-call, but we got paid a flat £30 for an actual callout which was to cover 4 hours. Not much. I was salaried, not Hourly paid. They gave us all a company Blackberry and you could be called or emailed any time of day or night regardless of being on call.

Personally, I would not allow my team to perform any form of work duties without being compensated. Even if the law stated that it did not need to be compensated. Now I don't care if this comes in the form of financial compensation or time off in lieu, but any on call work will be recognised no matter how little. The reason for this being that unless you are willfully volunteering unpaid on purpose, then no one should work unpaid. It's basically a form of exploitation and is unfair to the employee. In the UK, if an employer was attempting to make a change to an employee's terms of employment in this way then it would be considered a big enough change that it would require a consultation period and then subsequently all employees would be required to sign a new contract to include the new terms of employment. For those that didn't agree they would be offered voluntary redundancy (sometime resulting in a significant payout). Bottom line is at least anyone that did agree is fully informed as to what they are agreeing to and on what terms and can make an informed decision regarding the future of their employment.

Obviously in real terms there are many of us that put in the extra hours in a working week regardless and routinely perform unpaid overtime, but we know we are doing that and it's not the same as being on call so is not comparable should an employer attempt top make that point to validate their requirements.

It's only a job at the end of the day. We work to live not the other way around. When it starts to become a forced arrangement of on-call hours with no pay/compensation arrangement in place then not only are you, the employee, financially deprived as well as time deprived, your work life balance has officially taken a hit and your employer is, quite frankly, taking the piss.

Employers should learn that happy and sufficiently compensated employees will be better performing, more productive, more loyal and more willing to go the extra mile than those who are not. This is not the 20's anymore, you can't just chuck folk down the pit and shout at them to get cracking and then beat them to a pulp when they falter. Tell your employer to get with the times. If the reason is he is refusing to pay is down to the fact that they can't afford it then they can't have it. You wouldn't expect to employ a security firm to watch your house while you were away then tell them they won't be paid. They'd be the ones most likely to rob your house in protest.

US employment laws are not as good as they are in the UK. I would check your contract of employment first to see if it has any mention of it in there. Next I would speak to HR. If you boss is adamant this will happen then they will need to make changes to your contract.

I have just been through this as I have changed from a local to global role. I have manage to get out of On Call Duty due to my Army Reserve commitments.

Something else to consider (in lieu of actual cash compensation) is time off.

If your employees are salaried they get paid the same whether they work forty hours or eighty - and sending them off at forty will go a long way to not only making an unpaid on call less of an annoyance but also showing upper management the results of their actions.

If the on call isn’t burdensome at all - I’ve been on a rotation that a call happened once a month, if that - it might be a wash, but if it’s taking away chunks of weekend on the regular you’re going to have two employees looking for new gigs.

Something else to consider (in lieu of actual cash compensation) is time off.

If your employees are salaried they get paid the same whether they work forty hours or eighty - and sending them off at forty will go a long way to not only making an unpaid on call less of an annoyance but also showing upper management the results of their actions.

If the on call isn’t burdensome at all - I’ve been on a rotation that a call happened once a month, if that - it might be a wash, but if it’s taking away chunks of weekend on the regular you’re going to have two employees looking for new gigs.

I was salaried at my last job, and we got paid at double time for the out of hours work we did. Having a salary doesn't mean you can't earn extra money for extra work.

There are four of us "On Call". We rotate between us a week at a time. Two of us are on salary, two hourly. Salary, we can take compensation time. Normally, we don't, unless it runs into a couple of hours. The hourly workers can take comp time or get overtime, their choice. We usually don't get many calls. The last time I was on I got two calls for a total of 1 hour and 15 minutes and most of that was waiting on the laptop to do Win 10 updates when I turned it on.

I was just about to bring up the points made in what you shared here. Whether an employer is required to compensate for waiting time depends on the circumstances. But if you are in a position to bargain, I would fight for it. I speak from experience when I tell you that being on call without being compensated for waiting causes resentment.

For them, you may have to at least be flexible on hours when they are on call. That is if they are not being compensated. I would be tempted to allow them to claim a minimum of 2 hours of time they are on call even if they do not get any calls. I know this tip toes an ethical line, but they do have to put their lives on hold while on call.

I'm one of three in an on-call rotation and they don't pay us anything for the days/afternoons we're on call. If you get a call during off-hours, you start earning overtime pay, but only for the actual time worked on the call, otherwise - no compensation.

I'm one of three in an on-call rotation and they don't pay us anything for the days/afternoons we're on call. If you get a call during off-hours, you start earning overtime pay, but only for the actual time worked on the call, otherwise - no compensation.

This is the situation that we are about to be put in. Are you expected to answer calls within a certain period of time or remain within a reasonable are of the office if you need to return? I feel that is where the line is crossed and you are making sacrifices for your employer without anything in return.

I'm one of three in an on-call rotation and they don't pay us anything for the days/afternoons we're on call. If you get a call during off-hours, you start earning overtime pay, but only for the actual time worked on the call, otherwise - no compensation.

This is the situation that we are about to be put in. Are you expected to answer calls within a certain period of time or remain within a reasonable are of the office if you need to return? I feel that is where the line is crossed and you are making sacrifices for your employer without anything in return.

If we don't answer the call and accept the ticket within 40 minutes, it is escalated to my manager - so we're expected to be prompt, yes. Honestly, I never really thought about how unfair that was until you brought it up - but now I'm beginning to question it.

Personally, I would not allow my team to perform any form of work duties without being compensated. Even if the law stated that it did not need to be compensated. Now I don't care if this comes in the form of financial compensation or time off in lieu, but any on call work will be recognised no matter how little. The reason for this being that unless you are willfully volunteering unpaid on purpose, then no one should work unpaid. It's basically a form of exploitation and is unfair to the employee. In the UK, if an employer was attempting to make a change to an employee's terms of employment in this way then it would be considered a big enough change that it would require a consultation period and then subsequently all employees would be required to sign a new contract to include the new terms of employment. For those that didn't agree they would be offered voluntary redundancy (sometime resulting in a significant payout). Bottom line is at least anyone that did agree is fully informed as to what they are agreeing to and on what terms and can make an informed decision regarding the future of their employment.

Obviously in real terms there are many of us that put in the extra hours in a working week regardless and routinely perform unpaid overtime, but we know we are doing that and it's not the same as being on call so is not comparable should an employer attempt top make that point to validate their requirements.

It's only a job at the end of the day. We work to live not the other way around. When it starts to become a forced arrangement of on-call hours with no pay/compensation arrangement in place then not only are you, the employee, financially deprived as well as time deprived, your work life balance has officially taken a hit and your employer is, quite frankly, taking the piss.

Employers should learn that happy and sufficiently compensated employees will be better performing, more productive, more loyal and more willing to go the extra mile than those who are not. This is not the 20's anymore, you can't just chuck folk down the pit and shout at them to get cracking and then beat them to a pulp when they falter. Tell your employer to get with the times. If the reason is he is refusing to pay is down to the fact that they can't afford it then they can't have it. You wouldn't expect to employ a security firm to watch your house while you were away then tell them they won't be paid. They'd be the ones most likely to rob your house in protest.

Thank you very much for your strong points. What surprises me is that here they preach that the employee comes first and I am very appreciative and grateful for the benefits that I have. I love it here and know exactly what I walked into when I signed that paper. Volunteering to work on a weekend or after hours on a project to not fall behind is one thing but to now have additional mandatory hours that I need to be available and work ready creates a case for renegotiation of salary as well.